That's one expensive telly!
Paris, 'cos she'd pay $5,000,000 for a 52-incher
Nintendo has been hit with yet another Wii-related lawsuit. This time, it’s a $5m (£3.3m/€3.7m) action filed by a US mother who claims that the console’s Remote strap design is faulty and dangerous. Wii_strap_designs Nintendo's second Remote strap design (left) and third attempt (right) According to documents filed with …
And i am a complete retard who throws my controller at my plasma. I also think its a good idea to let go of it so hard that it breaks the telly. I think i will sue sony because i am a bit of a biff. Who's with me? (by joining me you agree to be viewed as a similar retard).
... that i trust my hand more than that little strap. Who tries to throw the Wiimote around anyway. If the little boy can´t hold the remote then i wouldn´t give it to him. It´s like giving a 2 year old your Iphone and then file a lawsuit against apple cuz the Touchscreen isn´t childproof (If the display has Blue/black stains over it afterwards).
But anyway, i´d like to have a few millions for things that are my fault too, wouldn´t that be great?
At best this is a case for small claims court. You have a 52 in Samsung valued at less than $2000 dollars and you are suing for $5,000,000. I think someone is looking for a payday.
At the end of the day it is lawsuits like this that gum up the legal system. If anything I believe this woman should be fined and jailed for even wasting the legal systems time with this crap.
It is high time that the the courts be used for more useful things... Um let's saw actually enforcing the law rather than being the pathway for some white trash mothers financial windfall.
I guess she did not take advantage of Nintendo's gel cover for the Wii controller. I guess her young son is a pretty strong kid to break a tv with a 3 ounce piece of plastic that should have been wrapped in soft silicon.
I don't understand this problems. My family has had the Wii since it first came out and we have never had a problem of a remote go flying.
Why do people let go of the remote in the first place? I don't even use the wrist strap as I can count on not letting go of the remote to keep it in place.
I always go commando on the Wii as the wrist strap is annoying. You've got to be some sort of uber fucktard to swing with enough force to not only hurl the remote 6foot or more but to make it that distance and it still have enough energy left to cause damage...Maybe that woman shouldnt have smoked when she was pregnant, then she wouldn't have had retarded children.
If you're too stupid to be swinging the Wii remote around like a mad [wo]man, you deserve for your TVs to be broken. I have a Wii, and don't even use the stupid strap, because once you realize that the motion sensor works better with smaller movements than large movements, you're no more likely to have it flying toward the screen than with any other control input.
1) My idiot child broke something / I tripped and fell into the TV.
2) I don't have contents insurance / They wouldn't pay up.
3) I want money to prove it wasn't my fault / Waaah! Pay me, pay me, I'm not a retard who can't read instructions...
$5m would buy a seriously impressive TV. WTF was it made of, diamonds?!
So, let me get this straight. This woman is suing Nintendo because her son doesn't have the wits to not let the wii remote go?
If he's that negligent, I'd be willing to bet he wasn't even wearing the strap! (Have fun proving that!)
And while 52" TVs are expensive, isn't $5m just a tad overkill?
This is stupid. Might as well claim that Samsung didn't make the TV strong enough, or that the Wii remote should be made of felt.
Please let this grasping woman lose and have to pay court fees.
I'm now just waiting for someone to do something really stupid and then try to sue some religious organisation since whatever god they believe in obviously made them that stupid.
If you're holding onto the remote it CAN'T go through your tv in the first place. The strap is there as backup to ensure if you release the remote it doesn't fly off. If put on properly the force needed to break them is huge. Her tv got broken, she should claim it on accidental damage insurance rather that filing a law suit.
So she wants to sue for $5M. For a broken telly?
Or is she suing for something that hasn't happened, but possibly might happen at some point in the future?
No TV is worth $5M, and if she's that worried perhaps she shouldn't use the Wii? It's not something she NEEDS... it's a games console, not a kidney dialysis machine fer chrissakes!!!
Seriously, how can she be taken seriously? Why not sue shoe manufacturers too? I'm sure if you flung your shoe at full force at the telly repeatedly while holding onto only the lace, the lace would eventually break.
Does that mean the shoe manufacturer broke your telly?
And 5 million dollars?? For a broken telly?? Seriously. When can we build that wall to stop them getting out?
Is it just me that wishes I lived somewhere that had liberal laws on gun ownership when I read of these lawsuits?
Her child broke her TV while swinging a console controller around and she wants 5 Mil from Nintendo?
/me loads shotgun and then wanders off muttering "I am the angel of death and the time of purification is at hand".
And just why are people relying upon the strap? I would suspect that a person would HOLD the remote firmly. From my own experience and observation, if you are putting out so much force as to project the thing away from you, then you probably have special needs.
Paris, she has "special needs."
Okay, I can imagine being pissed off that my 52" TV got killed by a Wiimote. But why does that give her the right to sue for £3 million? I can see getting a new TV, something on top for time wasted and legal costs. But surely that's only a few thousand pounds??
Or does it mean if she wins the case she buys everyone else with a broken TV a new one?
From the class action:
"so one of the girls in particular really was having a good time, and really got into this game, and she was going for the full arcing motionslike you see in those commercials
… and before you knew it this Remote,with strap on, and I made sure that bad boy was strapped to her wrist, because Nintendo’s warned me so many times. It actually flew out of her hand anyway, broke, out of her hand, the strap actually ripped, it went like this, flying at mach speed I think, BAM!, hit our wall, put an indent in our wall."
Hmm, yeah. "Mach speed" !
That was just an example this woman has dug up from a web site to boost her case (can't see text like the above standing up in a UK court, but hey, this is America we're talking about), but her own case smacks of someone's telly got bust "somehow" (was she in the room when her kid did the damage and blamed it on the Wii?), and spots an opportunity through the "Sue Everyone" Legal System of America. Probably because their insurance company wasn't going to pay up.
No icon due to lack of "rolleyes".
Ahh just another 'concerned' parent jumping on the bandwagon. I'd be surprised if the wrist strap did actually break, and in any case, she should have made she she had one of the FREE silcon covers that Nintendo were giving away to Wii owners (and which are included with every Wiimote now anyway).
I've had friends over playing with my Wii (2nd generation wrist strap without the silicon cover) and I've not had a wrist strap break at all no matter how hard I fling the thing about. The only way I'm likely to do any damage is either if I stand too close to the TV and hit the screen (but if I'm that close the Wiimote doesn't work as it can't pick up the sensor bar) or if someone else is standing close - I haven't hit anyone yet although I have been hit by my daughter playing Wii Sports.
Maybe Nintendo should supply a cat with every Wiimote and have a notice on there - if you can't swing the cat in 360 degrees successfully without actually hitting something, then don't use a Wiimote. :-)
P.S. I really do love cats, I have 7 of them!
Don't buy or use a wii. If you've bought one then take it back.
The consumers are not the 'victims' here. They choose to use the wii, so fuck them.
I'd like to see companies in America start sueing consumers for 'being defective'.
Oh my straps broke because I'm violently swinging the remote at the TV.... hmmm... it's not my fault. I'm a victim. I could make some $$ here and buy some more hamburgers to fuel my McDonalds-created fat-arse... (nothing to do with me eating all this food. McDonalds made me fat. I'm the victim... I should sue them...).
Wow, americans will sue for just about anything these days. If you choose to buy games that cause you to swing the wiimote then you risk slipping it one time or another. and if you are swing that thing so hard that it would cause the strap to break, then maybe you should rethink your gaming habits. You don't see baseball players suing bat companies for bats that go flying out of there hands when they swing, why should this be any different.
Go play kick the can
So let me get this straight - the woman is suing Nintendo for $5 MILLION because her big TV (which probably cost $4000 tops) was broken? I can understand suing for the cost of the TV, and maybe a bit more to cover lawyer fees and such, or a lawsuit of that size if her kid had suffered severe injuries as a result of a flying Wii controller, but what she's doing is an attempt to use the legal system as a high-priced lottery with good odds...
It's a tiny little piece of fabric/plastic. You'd have to be a fool to expect it to hold up to a lot of abuse. Nintendo never guaranteed that you could repeatedly to try throw the thing and expect it to hold. You're supposed to HOLD ON to the controller, and the strap is there in case you happen to drop it. My remote straps look like they're new. If they're worn... you're doing something wrong. And it's especially clear that you're an idiot if you manage to break it playing the bowling game. Bowling requires no fast-twitch motion. You'd have to deliberately drop the remote.
I think it would be safer not to include a strap at all - or perhaps they should include a metal wiihandcuff for wankers who can't remember that they're not really throwing a bowling ball.
Basic physics refutes her argument. Simply apply weight to a wii wrist strap until it breaks in order to calculate tensile strength. You'll find that they're quite hard to break. You'd certainly need to use far more force than any game would realistically require you exert, given how crappy the sensors in the remote are.
I've played on the Wii plenty of times, and never used the strap, but I have used the big condom Nintendo gave out.
Give Nintendo a break. Why doesn't she sue the manufacturer of every single item in her house that isn't bolted down, since it's a possible projectile. If you're throwing the damn wiimote so hard and have such a loose grip on it you toss it with force to break your TV, you're an idiot and Nintendo should hold no responsibility. Oh, and DANGEROUS? There's no way in hell the strap is dangerous.
The court should set up a 52" tv and wii console inside the court room and let the kid play the game as he would at home to prove that it was either a "defective" strap or the kid being violently stupid.
Or it could have been the mother throwing something at the kid to shut him up, missed and hit the tv.
Why do americans always find a way to sue even when its their own fault?
I dont care if the strap is rubbish or not, if you throw things toward your oversized TV, then let go , guess what - its your fault.
and if your tv cost £5 million to replace - your a sucker in the first place ;)
I see a lot of comments that $5m is expensive for a telly. Let me explain:
It's a class action.
In USA, lawyers often work on a percentage - e.g. 33% of the damages awarded. For a (say) $2000 TV, her lawyer might get $700 - not really worth his while for such a longshot case. (The Mom would get $1300, and I think she might have to pay court costs and maybe expert witness costs too, so she might get less or nothing).
But if you make it a class action then you're suing on behalf of everyone who's thrown their Wii remote through their telly, so if you think there are about 2500 similar people then you can sue for $5m. This gives the lawyers $1.7m, and as "lead plaintiff" the Mom might get a cut in the $x0,000 range. Everyone else who's bust their TV due to throwing their Wii remote through it might get $1300 or so (or maybe just a new wriststrap and a free download of a Wii game "worth $49" - no-one really cares about them). It's still a longshot, but if it works at least it's a lucrative longshot. And since the risk to Nintendo is much higher, there's a much better chance that Nintendo will settle and pay some money rather than risking going before an unpredictable jury.
it sint the stupidity of the claimant, its the american legal system. a british lawyer wouldnt take up the case, it wouldnt make it through due dilegence procedures, and therefore not get filed a s a legitimate claim, thats what it is for.
You are responsible for your own actions. If you thought the strap wasnt sufficient - you shouldnt have used it and returned it to the shop.
good grief america, sort your system out! leave manafacturers alone when it is blatantly not its fault.
Let's see, add the force necessary to break the strap to the force necessary to send the wii-mote across the room to the said television, then figure up the force times mass to equal the energy needed to damage the same.
NASA should hire this kid to throw things into orbit!
Even if the wii-mote could ruin the TV when hurled at it, there is the question of why the screen was so fragile. Better ask another $20m from the TV manufacturer for the emotional distress caused by the loss of SpongeBob viewing.
A wiimote made of diamond, the world's strongest metal, collides with a 52" plasma TV made of the world's strongest metal, diamond.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN?
A. Wiimote breaks; lawsuit.
B. TV breaks; lawsuit.
C. Mutual appliance destruction occurs; lawsuit.
D. Harmless wiimote deflection occurs, unless the wiimote is deflected into something of less robust construction (such as a lamp, a parakeet, or someone who sues people when she's bored), in which case, lawsuit.
E. Diamond is not a metal--also, lawsuit.
"Class Action" is just another name for lawyers fees. The $5,000,000 won't go very far when it is split up between all the members of the class - maybe enough for a new strap :-)
The kicker is the small print at the end of the complaint - $5M exclusive of expert fees and costs. I wouldn't be surprised if the fees end up being just as much and only going to the law firm.
because it was a pain in the arse to get the remotes in and out of the PerfectShot pistol shell for shooting games. We've done marathon wii baseball games, had friends over for hours while playing the various Wii bowling titles.
The first judge that comes up to this case should first throw the case out. Then he should require Child Protective Services to investigate her son's situation. Either his mother is unable to properly raise a "special needs" child, or is putting her son at risk by raising him in such a con-artist, exploitative home. Thirdly, charge her for all expenses incurred for both the court and Nintendo.
Make an example out of these blatant, obvious frivolous lawsuits.
I play Racquetball and you can switch the racket quite hard in that I have NEVER A) Had a strap break for that, B) thrown a racket. WTF is her son doing with the remote that would cause this? Only time I have ever let go of the racket is when I was smacked in the back of the head with the ball (HARD) or another racket came down on my hand (which hurts). As for NASA hiring this idiots spawn maybe we should just put him over in Iraq and let him do the security work. If he can throw things that hard they wouldnt mess with him.
Hell I rub them out with more force then you can get on the remote and I havent ripped it off yet.....
/mines the one with the blue balls in it.....NO NOT THOSE BLUE BALLS.
We file court documents with hyperlinks in them now? I wanted to read the entire article but stopped after see'ing URL links and also information related to 'defendants' that aren't listed in the doc. I've never in my life seen a court document filed with a plaintiff "and others similar" or however that was written. That's equal to going into a traffic ticket case saying well me and 5000 other drivers have also ran into this same thing.....
Come on, how old was the kid, was proof provided the wii was purchased legally, was proof shown these idiots are competent enough to even control themselves with a gaming system. This is utter nonsense and it's the kind of crap that makes us americans looks like idiots.
The courts will take a case like this while we might have an illegal alien as a president or at least one that's not qualified to be the president, that kind of case isn't imortant, it's important to know who's throwing wii controllers around.
it's the bloodsucking, ambulance-chasing parasitic organisms known in the US as attorneys that run the figure up to $5 mil. There's not a thing in America that doesn't cost twice what it should because of these scum-sucking wastes of human skins. First we let 'em pull stunts like this, then we send 'em to Washington DC to run the joint. We get what we deserve, I guess...
Has anyone played Wii bowling ?
Its a game that requires gentle subtle controller usage to allow for maximum
accuracy......or something like that.
My point is, what kind of physcopath plays wii bowling by hurling the remote so hard
it could smash a tv ? The child obviously needs a good slap.
Go on Nintendo, counter sue for <insert some clever reason from lawyers> and slam this idiot into the ground. Only when someone has everything taken away from them and people realize their is a downside (its a gamble after all) will these stupid lawsuits stop.
Paris, well because she is a blithering idiot as well.
Funny, I was thinking of refering back to my previous comment about shooting those clucking funts making that malware and saying how I'd like to extend the remit to shooting stupid bitches like this one.
Gene pool cleansing, it's for the greater good.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021